National Republican., 1887-04-25
Some Questions That Ought to lie An
wered.

some OueBtiOns lnHJ Ougub 10 be hn-
wered.
There are some conundrums which the
interstate commission should answer to
the satisfaction Of the public, or they may
be suspected of indulging in favorltism.
The first OF these is, Why, II rebates are
perfectly legal" to protect the export trade
of Boston, they are not also "perfectly le-
gal" TO protect the export trade Of New
York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other
cities, and II proper, why the COM
mission did not say so? 1t is a well known
fact that the operation OF the law has al.
verted large quantity of grain intended
for export, from the cities named, to New
Orleans via the Mississippi river. II Bos-
ton exporters, because of the slightly longer
haul, are to be privileged to make rebates,
why not New York, Philadelphia, and Baltl.
more exporters
A second and still more serious question
is, Why should foreigners who want to buy
our wheat, flour, corn, beef, pork, aul
other articles OF food shipped from Boston
be given advantages not given to the Amer
lean citizens OF Boston and It's vicinity9 In
other words, why should prices be reduced
for foreign buyers, by permitting low rates
Of freight, when like reduction Is refused
to Americans on the food they are CON-
PEELED to purchase, and which is brought
by rail from the westH
A third question is, Why, II the Northern
Pacific, the Southern Pacific, aud the Atch-
ison, Topeka and Santa Fe, three OF the
transcontinental routes, are entitled to 0
suspension Of the short haul clause 70,
seventy-flve days, the same pri7 i7ilege is no,
accorded to tie other transcontinent II
route composed of the Union and Centra
Pacific?
II is fact that must be known to the
commission that the same reasons which
affect the traffic OF one Of these roads az
fects them all. Why, then, this distinction
| Is 1t possible that judicial body like The
commission, sitting as court, permits
outside clamor to affect its judgment aud
sway its conclusions?
These are questions that people will ask
and conclusions will be drawn not nc al
| favorable to the commission when, as tlt
| commission has assumed the power
| whether the law confers II or not, to sus-
| pend for time the fourth section
for some roads, without examination, Il
| would have been just as easy to suspend 1
for the same time and in the same manner
for all the roads, and thus have prevented
any unfavorabe comment or any suspicion
Of favoritlsm or prejudice.
The commission has difficult task. n,
fair-mlnded man or fair newspaper woult
seek to make 1t more difficult by unfavor
able or unjustifiable comment, but news
papers must deal with facts as they occur
and public men have no right to complai
II at any time unfavorable criticism Is made
when they give reasonable grounds for tina
criticism.
The commission should suspend the shor
haul clause for all the railroads during
definite but short period, not over 81
months, and then make an examination o.
the leading thoroughfares, an examination
not for the benefit of the railways, but on
which looked to the interests of shippers
consumers, traders, and carriers, an
through the information derived from tina
examination formulate rules for the govern
ment Of those principal lines, by which sue
determinations as are complained Of b
the dressed meat companies OF the we!
and others Of q similar kind would no longt
be permitted, no one could criticise th
action Of the commission.
When travel and transportation had bee
adjusted on equitable principles on til
great arteries of trade, then the commi
sion could look after the smaller roads an
regulate them in the same way, regardin
the interests Of all parties.
Such action as this would prevent an
trouble or loss, either to the railways I
the parties dependent upon them for tran
portation.